Blade Runner v Mars trilogy: Have we ever really considered what the future of transportation will look like?
Dermot Desmond
made the case for abandoning MetroLink
, arguing that autonomously-driven vehicles (AVs) will make it redundant. Saying AVs would dramatically cut private car ownership in the decades ahead, he suggested the metro would be 'useless, out of date in 10 or 15 years' time'.
But have we ever really considered what the future of
transportation
will look like, given recent advancements in vehicles and technology?
Twentieth and 21st century humans are arguably conditioned to welcome technological progress even when its purposes are not obviously to the benefit of society. After all, we are the generation that has been gifted the internet, the smartphone and now artificial intelligence. We are the Axiom Humans in the film
Wall-E
who float around in hoverchairs, completely oblivious to our surroundings. Who are we, mere end users and consumers, to question the techno-gods?
But every
technology
has a story.
None of it was discovered by accident in a lab. Technologies by definition are designed interferences (both good and bad) in the natural and social order. They are the product of human imagination and desires, and also corporate agendas.
READ MORE
For example, most of the social media platforms these days are really sophisticated data collection companies whose main customers are advertisers, not end users. The US author
Shoshana Zuboff describes this as 'surveillance capitalism'
. It is a far cry from the emancipatory potential once dreamed of by early 20th century philosophers like Herbert Marcuse and Walter Benjamin, whereby technology would be used to challenge power structures and democratise culture.
Science fiction writers often excel at explaining the present tense back to us. They often showcase technological innovation as a way of making a deeper point about social control or the death of nature. For writers such as Philip K Dick or Kim Stanley Robinson, technology serves as a backdrop for themes about reality, social organisation and what it means to be human.
Philip K Dick, whose stories were made into films such as Blade Runner, Minority Report and The Adjustment Bureau, uses hovercars, 'mag-lev' autonomous vehicles and flying cars to create a sense of a future that is both advanced and dilapidated. In Dick's stories, even the most advanced technology is still just a mundane necessity in a polluted, crowded and inhospitable world. In contrast, Robinson is more optimistic that technology can be moulded and shaped by humans to serve democratic ends. The 'skyhooks' and spacecraft in his Mars trilogy showcase human ingenuity and co-operation as the colonists struggle to terraform a barren planet.
[
Robot cars: The autonomous vehicles are coming, or are they?
Opens in new window
]
We are not that far off from flying cars these days, if drones count. But it is likely to take decades before AVs can operate reliably in mixed urban traffic, bad weather conditions, and where wireless access is unreliable, all of which will require huge investment. Will the taxpayer be expected to foot the bill to prepare our road infrastructure for AVs?
AVs are being designed to 'prescribe' a new way of life for its users and the public at large. The 'script' promises a future of reduced traffic, increased safety, and newfound leisure time for 'drivers' who can now work, relax or sleep during their commute. However, don't be surprised when the proprietors of the technology start arguing for dedicated traffic lanes, subsidies and tax breaks because this technology will be very expensive.
[
The Irish Times view on AI vehicles: no replacement for MetroLink
Opens in new window
]
It also involves a darker side, reminiscent of the dystopian worlds in science fiction. The AV could also become a constantly monitoring entity, collecting data on its passengers and surroundings. Surveillance and advertising are based, after all, on pretty much the same information infrastructures.
One of the great lessons of science fiction is that no matter what the technological horizons seem to promise, we still have the same basic challenge of figuring out how to live together. We live on this unique, fragile planet, with its limited resources and planetary boundaries. As long as AVs require vast quantities of non-renewable, finite resources, land and energy, and if they command road space as inefficiently as private vehicles, we won't be much better off than we are today. A truly sustainable future for transport is one that privileges shared, public and active mobility over private cars whether they are AV or not.
[
Why driverless vehicles just can't quit humans
Opens in new window
]
Technology can be part of a socio-ecological transition, but it all depends on what problems we expect it to solve. And the most important one is whether we want to share resources or compete for them in a climate-changing world.
Sadhbh Ó' Neill is a climate and environmental researcher
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
9 hours ago
- Irish Times
‘Traffic-light' dashboard lets PwC in UK monitor office attendance
PwC has stepped up the monitoring of its UK employees' office attendance with a dashboard that allows senior partners to track pass swipes and WiFi connections, sparking concern from some staff. The increased scrutiny has triggered unease among some staff over how they are tracked, two people at the firm told the Financial Times. One senior staff member said they had 'lost count' of the number of colleagues at the accounting and consulting firm who had raised concerns. Another person said employees had sought more transparency as the firm began 'pushing hard' to increase attendance. PwC told its UK staff last September that it would monitor their office attendance like it did billable hours and require them to work in the office or at a client site at least three days a week. READ MORE Staff who breach the policy can face formal sanctions, with their performance evaluations and bonuses potentially affected, according to guidance for staff seen by the FT. [ Working from home 'trending upwards' despite moves to bring workers back to the office Opens in new window ] Staff show up as 'amber' on the dashboard, which first went live for supervisors in April, if they dip below 60 per cent office attendance, and 'red' if they fall below 40 per cent, according to the guidance. Attendance data can be accessed by business unit leaders and chief financial, administrative and people officers. Staff can also access their own data via the dashboard. The system traces laptop WiFi connections to check whether employees are working at client sites on the days they say they are, the policy documents state. The firm also cross-references this information with data from HR platform Workday and employees' time sheets. Staff who are unable to meet the in-office quota for reasons including sickness or family issues can seek allowances, said a person close to the firm. PwC's rival EY early last year started using swipe card data to monitor office entries, while Deloitte has maintained a more flexible policy. PwC UK's chief people officer, Phillippa O'Connor, told staff in a video in December that she was aware of concerns over whether monitoring workers' office attendance was consistent with the firm's mantra of 'trust' and 'empowerment', according to a transcript seen by the FT. Monitoring attendance 'aims to address persistent and deliberate non-compliance', O'Connor added in the video. 'It is not designed to penalise anyone for the occasional times when life events and unforeseen circumstances mean you aren't able to come to the office as planned.' PwC said there were 'clear benefits to in-person work' that have been 'borne out since adjusting our approach to hybrid working', adding: 'Our approach is consistent with other businesses and is recognised and accepted by the vast majority of our people.' 'We always listen to feedback and are committed to regular, clear and transparent communications about expectations,' the firm said, adding that it remains 'committed to flexibility', including early Friday finishes for six weeks over summer. 'Our dashboard ensures our people have easy access to their attendance data, so they can manage and plan their time in a way that works for them, our teams and our clients.' - Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025
Irish Times
11 hours ago
- Irish Times
Letting gardaí access our WhatsApps and chats to investigate crime could backfire
Minister for Justice Jim O'Callaghan announced plans in a speech recently to introduce a Bill that would require end-to-end encrypted messaging services, such as WhatsApp and Signal, to give gardaí access to private texts and chats. End-to-end encryption is a process of scrambling data that prevents any third party, including the service provider, from reading messages sent between a sender and a recipient. Users are increasingly demanding end-to-end encryption, using it to control the privacy and confidentiality of the information that they share. Journalists use encryption to protect their sources, patients use it to communicate with their doctors, and policymakers use it to protect classified government information from attackers. The Irish Council of Civil Liberties (ICCL) recognises that Ireland's interception laws are outdated and that end-to-end encryption presents a challenge for An Garda Síochána. We understand that the guards will ask for tools that would make their work easier. We also understand that it is the Government's job to take law enforcement's request and weigh it against the possible associated risks. This means striking a balance between: the protection of people's fundamental rights, including privacy and data protection; preventing the creation of vulnerabilities that threaten national security; and the gardaí having effective tools to investigate crime and vindicate the rights of victims. READ MORE But any moves at a national or European level to force companies to either break end-to-end encryption or put scanning technology directly on everyone's devices – so that police can access messages before they are encrypted – would profoundly undermine the security of all service users and create systemic vulnerabilities that will be exploited. It's also unlikely that companies will agree to provide such access. In his speech, Mr O'Callaghan said: 'We need to recall that the countervailing balance to the right to the individual right to privacy is frequently the collective right to security. Collective rights need to be acknowledged and on occasion should supersede individual rights .' Indeed. The issue at stake here is not a simple trade-off between individual freedoms, such as privacy and expression, and State security. Rather, it is about ensuring the collective security of all users of a platform, balanced proportionately against the legitimate interests of the State. On that basis, these proposals cannot be considered proportionate to the aims they claim to pursue. This debate is not unique to Ireland. Other jurisdictions such as the UK have put encryption squarely in their crosshairs and are now facing the diplomatic consequences as their allies pressure them to change course. Meanwhile, the debate rages on within the European Union, with security authorities in Sweden and the Netherlands stressing that circumventing encryption creates too great of a national security risk, arguing that hostile nations would exploit new technologies to attack European users. [ Emmet Ryan: Why the EU's plan to access our phones and data is daft Opens in new window ] In today's digital world, where encryption is the foundation of digital trust, it is not just an essential tool that we use to safeguard our private texts, emails, voice calls and social media. It also protects and secures the processing of our data when it comes to sensitive activities such as personal banking, online shopping, accessing health data and carrying out our employment. In essence, it is essential for our collective cybersecurity . Forcing companies to create access pathways within the technical standards upon which encryption relies would put all online activities at risk, as those pathways amount to security vulnerabilities that could be exploited by others. There's a fanciful belief, among some lawmakers, that we can undermine encrypted communications in a secure way: open a little door for just the 'good' guys to scurry in, take a peek at what one person is communicating to another, and scurry back out again, without undermining the security of the service for all users. But cybersecurity experts, technologists and computer scientists across the world have been clear: forcing companies to build backdoor access only for law enforcement is deeply misguided . There is a wide scientific consensus that it is technically impossible to give law enforcement exceptional access to communications that are end-to-end encrypted without creating vulnerabilities that malicious actors and repressive governments could exploit , as demonstrated in the recent Salt Typhoon cyberattack . As the European Court of Human Rights held last year , weakening encryption by creating backdoors would make it 'technically possible to perform routine, general and indiscriminate surveillance of personal electronic communications. Backdoors may also be exploited by criminal networks and would seriously compromise the security of all users' electronic communications'. Even Europol and the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity agree. They previously conceded that mandatory backdoors or weakening encryption would 'increase the attack surface for malicious abuse, which, consequently, would have much wider implications for society'. They also questioned the efficacy of such measures: 'Moreover, criminals can easily circumvent such weakened mechanisms and make use of the existing knowledge on cryptography to develop (or buy) their own solutions without backdoors'. As Ireland's own former special adviser on cybersecurity to Europol, Brian Honan , has previously stated: we either have strong encryption to secure our systems that criminals will abuse, or weak encryption to secure our systems that criminals will abuse. There are also serious questions of practicality. In jurisdictions where proposals similar to the Minister's have been introduced, providers of encrypted messaging services have threatened to leave – and, as mentioned, in the UK, the government may back down. Signal has threatened to leave the UK , France and Sweden . WhatsApp has made similar warnings in the UK. Earlier this year, the UK government ordered Apple to build a 'backdoor' in its encrypted cloud service . In response, Apple disabled its specific advanced data protection (ADP) service instead of complying with the order and is now challenging the order at the UK's investigatory powers tribunal. WhatsApp has said it will join Apple's challenge. Last month, reports suggest the UK government may be preparing to back down from its demand. Rather than undermining encryption and, with it, the trust and safety of millions of users, there should be investment in lawful, targeted, proportionate, effective and technically feasible approaches to digital investigation. We urge the Minister to engage in transparent consultation with cybersecurity experts, civil society and technologists before proposing any legislation that could irreversibly damage digital privacy and cybersecurity. Olga Cronin is surveillance and human rights senior policy officer for the Irish Council for Civil Liberties
Irish Times
21 hours ago
- Irish Times
The Irish Times view on Ireland's AI future: the clock is ticking
Given the scale of the claims being made for artificial intelligence, it is striking how slow the Oireachtas has been to give the subject sustained attention. AI is routinely described as having the potential to transform society, disrupt the global political order and even alter what it means to be human. Yet it was only this year that the Joint Committee on Artificial Intelligence began its work, holding its first public session in June. This week its chair, Fianna Fáil TD Malcolm Byrne, set out his thinking on what must happen next. Byrne believes Ireland could position itself as 'the AI island' but warns that the opportunity will be lost without swift and decisive action. He says he would be disappointed if both a new AI office and an AI observatory are not operational by next year. The office will be tasked with implementing the EU's AI Act, while the observatory will assess the technology's effects, from employment disruption to identifying future skills needs. In Byrne's view, those who embrace AI will displace those who do not, whether they are doctors, architects or lawyers. He welcomes the Government's plan for an AI summit during Ireland's EU presidency in 2026 and argues for clear ethical frameworks in education, where students are already using AI tools. He also points to the technology's current uses in Ireland, from automating recycling processes to analysing tax data. Such calls for urgency are sensible and overdue. But preparing the State for the changes ahead will require far more than offices, observatories and summits. The debate is complicated by the sweeping and often speculative claims surrounding AI, from the elimination of entire job categories to science-fiction visions of superintelligent machines destroying the human race. This discourse is unfolding against the backdrop of a global investment surge, with leading AI companies commanding extraordinary valuations and data centres proliferating at breakneck speed. History suggests such frenzies rarely end without turbulence. READ MORE Byrne's proposals are shaped by the EU's AI Act, which will impose a detailed regulatory roadmap over the coming years. That approach contrasts sharply with the let it rip stance favoured by Donald Trump's administration in the US, and with the UK's less prescriptive, more innovation-oriented strategy. Which philosophy will prove more effective is an open question but the divergence will have real consequences for competitiveness. If Ireland is serious about becoming 'the AI island', it must reckon with the reality that others are moving faster and with considerable resources. Ambition is necessary, but so too is a clear-eyed appraisal of the scale of the challenge and the pace of change. Without that, the island will be an observer, not a leader, in the age of AI.
